Originally named in memory of Lady Powerscourt, one of the 'Chief Women among the Brethren,' this is simply a place for me to collect stray thoughts about the Bible, women, the Brethren, Bible translation, manuscripts, writing systems, movies, books....

Monday, August 02, 2010

Jana Chapman Gates on Complementarianism

Gates has written an article for Christianity Today on complementarianism - Woman as Folly. Denny Burk has written it off as caricature. I thought it was relatively mild.

However, it is interesting that Denny Burk jumped to the conclusion that Gates reported that the teaching she was exposed to said that women were more prone to sin. Here is what Gates wrote,

The speaker on the DVD said these verses showed that women should appreciate the desire of men to analyze and provide counsel. But I had a hard time moving beyond the underlying premise, at least as I heard it: Women are foolish.

But Burk misreads her article and writes,

Gates’s article is interesting, but it is ultimately not that helpful. Mainstream complementarians are not making the case that women are more prone to sin than men.

And that is not what Gates said. She said that mainstream complementarians are teaching that women are not as able to analyze as men. Here is Tom Schreiner on male and female differences. I think his views here are fairly mainstream.

because of the different inclinations present in Adam and Eve. Generally speaking, women are more relational and nurturing and men are more given to rational analysis and objectivity.

Complementarians are saying that men are more analytic than women. Complementarians also believe that men have the right to make decisions for women. Two plus two .... as they say. I would suggest that Denny analyze Gates' article a little more carefully.

Modern financial economics assumes that we behave with extreme rationality; but, we do not. Furthermore, our deviations from rationality are often systematic. Behavioral finance relaxes the traditional assumptions of financial economics by incorporating these observable, systematic, and very human departures from rationality into standard models of financial markets. Overconfidence is one such departure. Models that assume market participants are overconfident yield one central prediction: overconfident investors will trade too much. We test this prediction by partitioning investors on the basis of a variable that provides a natural proxy for overconfidence—gender. Psychological research has established that men are more prone to overconfidence than women, particularly so in male-dominated realms such as finance. Rational investors trade only if the expected gains exceed transactions costs. Overconfident investors overestimate the precision of their information and thereby the expected gains of trading. They may even trade when the true expected net gains are negative. Models of investor overconfidence predict that, since men are more overconfident than women, men will trade more and perform worse thanwomen.

Our empirical tests provide strong support for the behavioral finance model. Men trade more than women and thereby reduce their returns more so than do women. Furthermore, these differences are most pronounced between single men and single women.

Heh. The argument that such a statement is "basic common sense" is an example of argument that appeals to emotion, rather than to logic.

Stereotyping creates reality to some degree. In the greater US culture, and in some Christian denominations the expectations are magnified, males are expected to "not be good at dealing with emotion", and women are supposed to be "more emotional" (in truth, not "more emotional" but more free to show emotions). To some degree, you get what you expect, as behavior outside of what is expected is punished by the (sub)culture and/or ignored by the brain of the observer whose observation contradicts expectation.

The latter is called "confirmation bias," and it would seem likely that it comes into play in such an argument calling on "common sense": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Interactions with people outside of one's usual circle AND type of environment (e.g., conservative Christianity that includes a believe in gender "roles") might help with confirmation bias.

Mara, your anecdote doesn't undermine the norm. I'm married and my wife is significantly more emotional and less rational than myself, as are the wives of most of my friends. My daughter is already at age 6 more emotionally inclined than my son. It's obvious to anyone who doesn't have an ideological ax to grind. It's one reason why careers like engineering are dominated (to put it mildly) by men.

I invite you to read the article I cited and interact with a few facts rather than just with the opinion of yourself and few of your buddies, that you are so much more rational than your wives. Because, quite frankly, your viewpoint is not coming across too well.

The entire point of the article is that men are routinely more overconfident than women and this interferes with their ability to make rational decisions. You seem to be intent on proving this point.

The article does not assess career choice but rational money decision-making.

Certain fields are male-dominated because men have systematically and deliberately through the years, kept women out. The same goes for white-dominated fields. For the excluder to blame the excluded, is hardly a rational act, but it's one that all human beings (men included) are well-known for.

Darius, it's not that you don't have the intellectual capital to recognize the difference between some and not all, you're a smart guy, I can tell. So why not admit that SOME women buck the trend and are indeed more rational than many of their male counterparts? And why hold the those exceptional women down for the sake of an ideological axe which grows duller every year?

Sue - I want you to know that I admire you and appreciate your efforts.

Darius - "I'm married and my wife is significantly more emotional and less rational than myself, as are the wives of most of my friends. My daughter is already at age 6 more emotionally inclined than my son."

Darius, if you really know almost no one who would deny that men are more rational than women, then I would suggest you have surrounded yourself with a certain type of person, and you are all participating in group-think together. The idea that men are more rational has been completely debunked in modern times.

And BTW, "emotional" and "rational" are not mutually exclusive.

Sue, I wanted to let you know how much I admire your reasoned responses on Denny Burk's blog post that you linked in this post-- in spite of the irrational personal attacks of the men over there who can't stand it that you make sense.

concerning Denny Burk's blog, Sue, I agree with Kristen. To me, your reasoning was impeccable. You explained in a reasonable and scholarly manner only to be hitting the brick wall of hardened complementarians such as Derek. He would look at black and genuinely see white. You took a lot of insults but kept going to expose false teaching and to speak the truth. I thank God for christians like you. It saddens me tremendously that so many Christians want to rule over others.

Sue, I decided to visit Denny Burk's blog to see how you handled things there. Bravo! You did a superb job. You gave excellent arguments that must have gone right over their heads. And you were so gracious about it.

There really is no need for either marriage partner to be in total control when both parties are reasonable and considerate of one another.

My husband and I have been married 48 years. We have always made major decisions together using our good sense to do so.

On minor decisions like whether to go out for dinner or not, sometimes my husband submitted to my wishes and sometimes I submitted to his. I believe most healthy marriages operate this way. It is a matter of give and take.

Muff Potter, I readily admit that some women are more rational than their husbands and some husbands are more emotional than their wives. Just as some women are physically stronger than their husbands... exceptions don't prove the rule though.

Exceptions never prove rules, they can only disprove them. When that expression was coined, "prove" meant "test". So if an exception is found, the rule is debunked.

Rule: men are more rational, women are more emotional.

Exception: some men are more emotional and some women are more rational.

Conclusion: Generalities are not rules but only averages.

Application for Christians: None whatsoever. IN CHRIST "there is no male and female"; IN CHRIST "you are all one". The Holy Spirit does not "look on the flesh" and God is still not "a respecter of persons". Christians are still not to "show favoritism".

But some men will never admit that women are fully human, made in God's image just as men are, and are never excluded from Jesus' model of "servant leadership" or denied any particular spiritual gift. They want preeminence. They want first place.

Paula, just because we're all equal in standing before the Lord doesn't mean that the innate differences and gifts he gave women and men don't still exist. Are you seriously saying that there is nothing different between men and women besides plumbing?

Since you concede that there are exceptions, then it necessarily follows that only reproductive biology is truly a universal trait of each sex. That being the case, then everything else is a matter of individual personality etc.

So we both agree, then, that all men are not made by God to lead all women.

Darius, I'm glad you concede that some and not all means just that. Some women desire nothing other than to bake cookies, raise kids and stay sexy for their men. This is a great and beautiful thing and I applaud it! But to say that this model MUST apply to ALL women implies that God allows no latitude of conscience among the humans he created.

"So we both agree, then, that all men are not made by God to lead all women."

Wrong. It's just that, due to the fall, some women sinfully grab leadership that isn't rightfully theirs and some men sinfully follow when they were designed to lead. This all stems from the fall. God said that women would desire to rule their husbands, and so they do. And in response, some men sinfully domineer their wives rather than lovingly serve them through their leadership.

Declaring the logical conclusion of agreed-upon premises "wrong" does not magically make it so. Your own admissions say that men are not automatic leaders of women, since some women can obviously lead and some men are obviously unqualified to lead. There's no wiggle room here.

And if you read Genesis 3 carefully, you'll see that it was ADAM who would usurp authority over his wife, who to that point had no authority over her but God's. This is what God said, not me.

And to actually call a following man a SINNER is just ludicrous. We are ALL commanded to follow Jesus, and only those fellow believers who exhibit the fruit of the Spirit and knowledge of the scriptures. Nothing is said about women following men. You are quite simply wrong.

I care not what leeway you benevolently purport to grant, since it is not your place to do so. You are a fallible sinner like the rest of us, and your interpretation of scripture carries no more weight than anyone else's.

We women following Christ follow HIM alone, and we neither require nor desire anyone's permission to do so.

Wrong. It's just that, due to the fall, some women sinfully grab leadership that isn't rightfully theirs and some men sinfully follow when they were designed to lead. This all stems from the fall. God said that women would desire to rule their husbands, and so they do. And in response, some men sinfully domineer their wives rather than lovingly serve them through their leadership.

And that is a biblical interpretation that is almost as old as you are, Darius. Complementarians rewrite parts of the Bible any time they feel like. It is putty in their hands.

What the scripture said was,

"To the woman also he said, I will multiply thy travailes, and thy child bearinges: in travail shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husbands power, and he shal have dominion over thee." Douay-Rheims 1610

THe subjection of women was as a result of the fall. But this verse has been rewritten many times.

This does NOT mean that women can't be the main bread winner, or that women can't take care of the bills.

Such a grand concession. Let women pat the bills!! Of course, men always want to keep open the option that women can be bread winners. Send a woman out to work and then she has to come home and be subordinate again. Three cheers for that scenario.

"Wrong. It's just that, due to the fall, some women sinfully grab leadership that isn't rightfully theirs and some men sinfully follow when they were designed to lead. This all stems from the fall. God said that women would desire to rule their husbands, and so they do. And in response, some men sinfully domineer their wives rather than lovingly serve them through their leadership."

It does not say that in the Hebrew. It is read into it and badly translated.

Where was he given authority before the fall? Where does God say that? The only thing you can show me is what is read into the account. No where does God say Adam is in charge of Eve before the fall or after.

All patriarchy is a result of the fall. It is sin to want to be in authority over another ADULT.

I have had to repost your comment but without the links. Sorry bout that. Here is Darius' comment,

"Wow, some of you gals have a twisted (and probably dishonest) understanding of complementarianism... but then, that doesn't really surprise me. Suffice it to say that the exegesis employed here is terribly misled. And it is hilarious that you would accuse comps of twisting Scripture, since yours is the position that is relatively new historically-speaking.

I'd suggest that you read what Paul has to say about marriage, but it won't matter unless you read it with repentant and willing hearts. The rebelliousness here is too strong to overcome with mere logic and proper exegesis. The Spirit has to be involved.

I recommend listening to my pastor's recent sermons on the roles and responsibilities of men and women, they were very good:"

Male supremacists always claim they're misrepresented or misunderstood; this is typical. And by adding "probably dishonest" he has set himself up as judge and jury of our motives. Again, very typical of the control mentality.

The fact is that we have probably studied male supremacist teachings more than Darius has. That's why we're speaking out against it with such determination.

And if he doesn't have scripture on his side, the male supremacist resorts to simply claiming that our exegesis is bad, without even an attempt to show us exactly where the error lies. Same for brushing off the fact that his position is the new one. Notice in this case how the valid syllogism I made from his own premises is simply ignored at this point.

If only the male supremacists would read scripture with the Spirit involved and "repentant and willing hearts", and a hefty dose of humility... After all, the only thing we're "rebelling" against is the flawed interpretations of proud men, not the scriptures.

Paula, you guys claim to have studied this issue a lot, so that's why I say you're probably being dishonest. But for the sake of the argument, I'll assume you are ignorant of good exegesis of the Fall. So here we go...

Genesis 3:16 is best translated "You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you."

Or

"Your desire will be for your husband, and/but he will rule over you."

The word here for control or desire is teshuqah. This is used two places in the Old Testament. The first use and most appropriate to the text is found one chapter later in Gen. 4:7: "Is it not true 1 that if you do what is right, you will be fine? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at the door. It desires to dominate you, but you must subdue it.”

The other usage is in Song of Solomon 7:10: "I am my beloved's, and he desires me!"

Clearly, the former usage is talking about control and domination. The second usage is probably referring to sexual desire.

So we have to look at the context of the text of Gen. 3:16.

"Your sexual desire will be for your husband, but he will rule you."

That doesn't really make any sense. For one, the second half of the statement doesn't really go with the first half. Secondly, sexual desire is not a result of the fall (that's a really slippery slope if we claim it is).

"You will desire to control your husband, but he will rule you."

Now this makes a lot more sense of the context. So clearly, the desire for women to be in charge is a result of the fall. Another result of the fall is that men will no longer naturally be servant leaders but instead domineering masters (though, like all other sins, one that not all men suffer from). What Jesus came to renew (among other things) was the marriage relationship where women would submit to their husbands and husbands would treat their wives with dignity, love, and gentleness and serve them as Christ serves the Church.

"Paula, you guys claim to have studied this issue a lot, so that's why I say you're probably being dishonest. But for the sake of the argument, I'll assume you are ignorant of good exegesis of the Fall."

So you admit to playing God by judging our motives, and tack on ignorance of good exegesis. After that, you think we're going to take you seriously. Wow.

Your sketchy, surface-skimming proof-text hermeneutic won't fly around here. Try reading some in-depth commentary sometime, but without the arrogant attitude. Here's my own analysis:a chapter in my book about Nicolaitans

And I'm sure a careful reading of many of Sue's articles here would be a great revelation as well. But watch out! You might accidentally learn from a woman.... no wait, not to worry; learning is not gonna happen, is it Darius.

And Sue, that Burk blog can be described as in Rev. 18:2. What a cesspool of hate, arrogance, and outright stupidity. I cannot believe real Christians can have sunk that low. But you have kept yourself clean in a mudwrestling contest, and that ain't easy!

Never mind, Paula. Thanks for not engaging my exegesis at all but resorting to name calling. Very mature. I've actually read some ORTHODOX commentary on the subject, something you should try out sometime... but open-mindedness is not really your thing, is it?

True. But here again, we cannot allow ourselves to be blamed for what sinful men do or how they react. The fact that we exist at all is enough excuse for some of them to take out their frustrations on the innocent.

"My concern is that after engaging with an egalitarian woman on the internet a comp man may take out his anger in his own home. I am distressed by this thought."

Haha, the only ones angry here are you ladies. And slanderous to boot (seriously, calling Burk's a cesspool???). It is telling that sins like hate and slander are so rampant here... if someone who didn't know the comp/egal issue at all visited this site, they would quickly tell who likely was in the wrong just based on the rhetoric.

Haha, if it weren't so sad, this would actually be hilarious. Get a grip, gals. You have no clue what a faithful Christian household looks like when you imply that comps are a bunch of chauvinistic pigs. The grace of Christ and the Church you know not, which deeply saddens me. I know in some of your cases, it is because of what evil men have done to you, and that is terrible indeed. They will get theirs in the next life. But that doesn't give you an excuse to twist and destroy Scripture (and your brothers and sisters in Christ as well). Two wrongs never make a right, so I'm told.

Ah ha! What it CAN look like... thanks for stating the obvious. Of course, in a sinful world, a comp household just like any household CAN be full of sin. DUH. Just because people fail at something doesn't make it wrong... particularly when God commands us to do it that way. You are in fact calling God a liar...

There is no more holiness in a comp home than in an egal home. Let's leave it at that.

Perhaps you can tell me where in the Bible it says that the husband is to essert his rulership over his wife. That was the point of Gates article and in over 300 comments no one on Denny's site will respond to this question.

I assume you mean assert. Nowhere, men are supposed to worry about their own role, which is to be a servant leader. We're to leave it up to God (at least, in all but the worst cases) to correct an insubordinate wife. It's the same relational ethic that applies to how we treat our neighbors... we're not to worry about correcting them and making them be good, that's God's job. That doesn't mean that pastors can't teach that women are to be submissive... as long as in the very next breath he reminds men that they are to sacrificially serve their wives. After all, the apostle Paul did just that.

And I see now that over in the jackals' den, Darius is advising people to bow to culture. Yeah, that's it... let's get our cues from Hollywood. It's just natural for men to rule over women, everybody's doing it.

And they think themselves Bible scholars!

I'm with you, Sue... I can't believe what I'm reading there, because it bears no resemblance to scripture or the fruit of the Spirit or the examples of Jesus and the apostles. I don't recognize male supremacism as remotely Christian. With the apostle John I am astounded and appalled at the sight of what is being touted as the Body of Christ these days.

"Darius is advising people to bow to culture. Yeah, that's it... let's get our cues from Hollywood."

Yes, because that's what I said. Are you always this dishonest or just when it comes to this topic, Paula? Seriously, it's been awhile since I've come across someone so full of hate and intellectual dishonesty. It's just dripping off your words.

Anybody can go and read Darius' appeals to culture for themselves, and then see who is hateful and dishonest. Pinning down Darius on any given point is like nailing jello to a wall. And just about as worth my time.

He's all yours, Sue. I draw the line at the point where it's obvious the opposition is only interested in conquest and not reasoned discourse.

Darius, it's really amazing how much you blame us for resenting your insults. Surely you understand that Suzanne is a scholar. If you would take a momenet to read Paula's link, you would see that she is also a scholar and that her link addresses each of the points in your exegesis. Instead you choose to act like we're all a bunch of ignorant little girls who need a man to set us straight.

You come to someone else's website and start throwing your weight around, condescending to the blog owner and her regular contributors, judging our motives, and insulting women in general. Then you call us "full of hate" when we resent it.

Please learn some manners. Your wife may have granted you authority over her, but you have no authority here and you have no business acting like you do. Suzanne has probably forgotten more than you ever knew about ancient Greek. So it might behove you to treat her with a little respect.

All you are doing is demonstrating what male comps often make so abundantly clear-- they have no real respect for women. Perhaps you ought to let Jesus' example show you how to treat women. He never acted towards them as you are acting towards us.

Really, Kristen??? Have you bothered to read the vitriol coming from Paula? She asks for specifics from me, so I give them... which she then ignores and chooses to insult my intelligence instead. And yet I am the hater? You gals are hilarious, you might want to step out of your echo chamber for just a second, the sky is actually blue.

Actually, you might find this funny, but I don't really care that much about this topic. There are bigger theological fish to fry in my world since I don't know any egals personally here in the Twin Cities (they tend to flock together, just like their homosexual-ordaining brethren). I just find it funny how close-minded and perturbed some people get when someone mentions that their emperor has no clothes.

And seriously, the Sue worship on here is a bit nauseating. What do I care if she knows Greek better than I do? Anyone ever informed you that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy... oh wait, there we discussing logic again, my bad. I see your appeal to Sue's authority and raise you any number of orthodox Biblical scholars, now or anytime in history. We can play that game as long as you want, but it won't end well for your side since I have the authority edge. I'd start at the beginning with Paul, but you guys just ignore him.

I apologize for not interacting with you throughout most of this thread. In the second comment on this thread, I cited an article for your interest and reading pleasure. I do not remember that you responded to this article and so I have assumed that you are not interested in interacting with me, and I have acted accordingly, allowing you to express your ideas freely.

I will not make any further attempt to interact with you if you are not interested in the article I cited. I don't mind.

Darius,I have long appreciated Sue's writing, though I rarely comment on the blog, and I'm not here to argue. And I have to say that I also appreciate your movie list. Anyone who likes "Shawshank" can't be all bad ;)

I am an Orthodox Christian (the 2000-year-old kind) and I have no dog in this fight anymore, because Orthodoxy isn't hung up on these issues (and it's definitely *not* because men and women have "well defined traditional roles"). I believe that a point-by-point exegetical discourse is only sometimes helpful, and only if it's not a battle. It was an explanation and lots of study of scripture, not a battle, that convinced me in the early '90s that complementarianism as defined by Piper, Grudem, Wilson, et al is contrary to what Jesus is about, and a misunderstanding of Paul.

I will tell you that anytime in my life that I encountered calvinistic theology, even while being attracted to its offer of clean answers to everything, I ended up feeling suffocated. And complementarianism was one of the several things that made it untenable for me to be an Evangelical after about 1998. Comp spokespeople like Wilson are smart and have a strong personality- and I believe what he espouses regarding the relationship of men and women is extremely unhealthy. Of course, you're free to discount what I say; I'm not here to prove anything, and I gather my current theology and church affiliation would make my opinions very suspect in your view.

However, I do hope that you might hear me because of my age; I am nearly 55, and my children are raised. The vast majority of relationships can't be attended to well on the level of argument or "answers". Perhaps as you and your beautiful daughter get older you will be able to hear women with a heart as tender toward them as it is toward her, and you might at least come to understand and respect Sue's point of view, even if you never agree with it.

Darius, in case you hadn't noticed, I wasn't addressing your arguments, I was addressing your tone. Stating that someone is a scholar when asking for respectful treatment, is hardly an "appeal to authority." It is merely a request not to treat us like rebellious children.

As far as what Paula has said, I did address it. I said that when you insult people, you should not be surprised if they respond in kind. You were the one who first came on here stating that men were more rational than women. If you're going to say things like that, and then go on to say we're dishonest and all the rest, it's hardly "manly" to then cry about what you get back. . .

Now that was a gracious and thoughtful response, Dana. Thank you, and I appreciate it. If there was more of that and less of the vitriol from the likes of Paula, we might actually come to some sort of reasonable agree-to-disagree situation. Instead, Sue consistently misrepresents the comp position and claims to know what comp families are like. It's not helpful, to say the least.

I agree that an exegetical discourse is usually only helpful when it's not a battle.

Thanks for your gracious words. I hope to raise my daughters (6 years and 4 months) to be godly women who stands for truth yet is willing to be Biblically submissive within their own marriages. What's more, I want them to find men who won't take advantage of their "weaker" state, who will sacrificially serve them as Christ did the Church.

Kristen, since when is saying that men are more rational an insult? Don't be so emotional. :) It's no different than saying that men are better at math or engineering. So what? That doesn't lower the value of women. Women are better at lots of things than men. Sue claims that all the time. Is it only an insult when men are better than women at something? Double standards, anyone?

Darius, you are not talking about a skill, such as math or engineering. (I maintain that generalizations on who is better at skills like this are only generalizations). But being "rational" is not just a skill, it's a basic factor of human intelligence. Women are not less "rational" than men, and yes, to say so is an insult, and only the first of many that you have given us here. If you want to be treated with respect, then do to us as you would have done to you.

Darius,"since when is saying that men are more rational an insult?"Only the most irrational person would come to that conclusion. Your pronouncement is not rational, not scientific, and certainly not true. It is an insult, a prejudice, and shows an arrogance that does not become a true man."Don't be so emotional." Another condescending remark. Not very becoming of you. "men are better at math or engineering"Please remember that we are talking about whether God put all wives under the authority of their husbands and that women are not accorded the autonomy that men feel that God has given them on account that they have penises. What has the idea that men are better at whatever has anything to do with the discussion? It is a debatable generalization that does not bring anything meaningful to the table."Sue consistently misrepresent the comp position and claims to know what comp families are like...is not helpful..."Sue has solid argument backing up her reasons, but anything that you don't agree is then labeled "misrepresentation". Sue simply is citing the comp's official teachings. "it is only an insult when men are better at something...double standard..."the difference between what the comps said and what the egals said is this: comps are GENDER SPECIFIC about leadership, egals are not. Would you shut out all women from engineering (men are better)? from becoming a mathematician (men are better)? It is not who is better, it is EQUAL OPPORTUNITY based on the Holy Spirit's gifting. It is about bearing spiritual fruits, not about what kind of "hood." I hope you come to an understanding on this point.

I'm all for rational debate, but I'm wondering whether we shouldn't stop attempting to have a rational discussion with someone who is here primarily, if not solely, to act as a troll: www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

I am sorry, Darius, that I can't arrange this so you get the last word in, I will not in any way comment or rebutt you in this comment. I apologize that things were not more friendly here on this post.